Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:37 pm

Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
That all simulators flight simulating those two crashes and were pilots took the proper action, were successful, is simply a misinformation.

In https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -controls/ we read:
In sessions in a Boeing flight simulator in Seattle, two FAA engineering test pilots, typically ex-military test pilots, and a pilot from the FAA’s Flight Standards Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG), typically an ex-airline pilot, set up a session to test 33 different scenarios that might be sparked by a rare, random microprocessor fault in the jet’s flight-control computer . . .
So again in light of what happened in the crashes, the FAA pilots took a further step. They flew the same fault scenario again, this time deliberately allowing the fault to run for some time before responding. This time, one of the three pilots didn’t manage to recover and lost the aircraft.

In this report, 3 of 3 pilots handled the standard scenario, 2 of 3 handled the delayed reaction scenario.

If you have another report, please share.



Peter Lemme has quite different feelings on the three second reaction time:

https://www.satcom.guru/2019/10/flawed-assumptions-pave-path-to-disaster.html

Don't know if you would accept this as "another report" though.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
Noshow
Posts: 1781
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:42 pm

So how will this affair now move on?
The FAA seems to have received the final Boeing update package and EASA is scheduled to test fly it around mid December. Will the D.C. hearing change or delay anything? Can we expect some decision by year's end?
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:44 pm

Revelation wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Problem is that training improvement is brought up in this thread in the context of a massive design issue, and is not properly considered as a minor contributing factor.

My thoughts are that the "massive design issue" is well understood and well on its way to being addressed.

Even the detailed JATR report didn't trigger much discussion here since people already knew enough from the various pieces of the puzzle that we'd already seen what the final picture would be.

The main thing that continues to generate controversy is what Boeing assumed about the capabilities of the pilots during the design process, vs what the pilots actual capabilities were.

We have a "fear of absolution" / "don't muddy the waters" contingent that dislikes discussion outside the scope of Boeing and/or FAA actions, but that's not the way the actual accident reports address the situation, all contributing parties get examined.

dtw2hyd wrote:
The same approach has been used for MAX.
Why a new AoA sensor failed pre-maturely, It happens, parts fail.
Why an FAA authorized repair shop didn't calibrate properly, it happens.
Why line MX didn't record the value prior to the test? OMG, Improper install by third-world airline maintenance lead to disaster.
The bias is glaring.

The FAA authorized repair shop got shut down once the evidence was shown by KNKT's report, so your rendition of events may be viewed as displaying a bias as well.

Haven't seen JT's maintenance shop get shut down (like ValuJet did after its crash in the 90s), but a top to bottom scrub of its records seems to be in order, if nothing else to photocopy the logs/records before more pages go missing and spot check the maintenance practices being applied to the current fleet.


It seems you are arguing that Boeing Commercial then should also be shut down . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:55 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
It's interesting how some posters here used ugly terms like racist when people had questions about how the pilots responded to the conditions they were presented with, but those same people now are showing very little concern about the fact that disadvantaged people are still being flown around by an airline whose training and maintenance shortcomings have been so vividly displayed.



Riddle me this, why isn't the other Boeing 737's having the same issues as the MAX with Lion Air? They are maintained by the same engineers and same processes that has clear shortcomings as what affected the MAX. That counts for the pilots as well.


That is what happens when one zooms in on causal factors rather than root cause. The underlying agenda usually is to shift focus maway from where it hurts.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:02 pm

morrisond wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:
Boeing and pilots have both there set of unrelated improvements to do.

I actually agree with this last statement. As the skills the Pilots didn't display on the MAX is not unique to the 737 MAX.

For example some of the Major Air disasters of the recent past that probably would not have happened with better manual skills/better CRM.
ET409 - 737 NG crash - Lack of Manual Flying Skills
AF447 - A330 Crash - Manual Flying Skills/Bad CRM/Minor design issues but really the crew
Colgan 3407 - Bombadier Dash 8-400 - Lack of Manual Skills, BAD CRM
AirAsia 8501- A320 - Bad Maintenance - Lack of Manual Flying Skills/Bad CRM

JT 610 - 737 MAX - Design Mistake/Bad CRM - Lack of Manual Flying Skills
ET302 - 737 MAX - Design Mistake/Bad CRM - Lack of Manual Skills


Nice work.

Perhaps it is worth to mention that the Max fleet totalled about 250 000 hrs in that time frame to expose some pilot short coming, while the other listed frames totalled hundreds of millions of hrs to expose some pilot short comings.

I can see why don't want to mention that, and how that effects your storey (which is really not the subject of this thread in the first place).

Hint: that difference is why the Max is grounded (rightfully). And why the NG, A330, DHC-400, A320 continue to fly safely (even in the hands of "third-world operators").
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
Chemist
Posts: 771
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:15 pm

PixelFlight wrote:
Chemist wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:
Actually the JT610 used the trim very extensively, so there definitely know how to trim, but no against the MCAS v1 unknown to them. As for the speed, the report allow to understand that in addition to multiple alarms, disagreement indications, stick shaker, and MCAS repetitive actions, the speed was not easy to figure out due to incoherent information from the aircraft:

"At 23:23:00 UTC, the aircraft EGPWS sounded “AIR SPEED LOW – AIR SPEED
LOW”. The TE controller responded that the ground speed of the aircraft, shown on
the radar display, was 322 knots. The DFDR recorded the indicated airspeed on the
Captain’s PFD indicated as 306 knots and on the FO’s PFD indicated 318 knots."

"At 23:23:08, the DFDR recorded on the Captain’s PFD low speed barber pole and
overspeed barber pole merged. On the FO’s PFD, the overspeed barber pole
appeared with the bottom of the pole about 340 knots and the low speed barber pole
did not appear."

The real overspeed did not occurred until the last 4 seconds before the crash, and the report did not list the overspeed as a contribution to the crash.

So based on your "they should know how to use trim" and "they should know to reduce power when going over max speed" argumentation, I still disagree that pilots can be blamed for a "response" to the erratic Boeing 737-8/9 MAX. Technically there was possibilities to saved the flight, but it was a Boeing erratic assumption to expect that there would "respond" in a way to save the flight in the context of was there experienced into the cockpit. You can maybe find a better argument, but I doubt that it can work with me if it's about a pilot "response" to Boeing erratic design.


One of the perhaps differentiators in airmanship is that one person has memorized everything they should know, and the other person *understands* what they should know. When you are pointing down, with flaps and gear up, in an aircraft with as much power as a 737 MAX, then you are going to be overspeed in really short order. There is an important set of descending (no pun intended) priorities, and not overspeeding is right up at the top. The "understanding" pilot would know this immediately. The "memorizing" pilot would be racking their brain for all the memorized items that they ought to be doing, trying to assess relative priorities - all while taking critical seconds. There is a differentiator and that's all basic training and understanding.
Also, the CRM is trained, and we know that the LionAir captain did a poor handoff. He'd been maintaining control with 20-some up trim activations, yet in passing control somehow didn't mention that very unusual detail to the FO. Another critical item not managed.
Yes, Boeing was the root cause. But I don't understand why you won't agree that the crews had plenty of room for improvement, well beyond whether MCAS was trained.

I did wrote this a bit early and still think it's the best I can do to date:
"Unrelated to the Boeing design error on the 737-8/9 MAX that need to be fixed before returning to service, the official report did identify crews training issues that need to be addressed."

I think it's fair to clearly separate the two points as unrelated because, as the EASA viewpoint, the pilot training is not to compensate an erratic safety design. But Boeing did an erratic safety design _AND_ did not require pilot training. From that point, the accident was only a matter of time. Of course the accident will hit with greater probability the crews under the average performance, and this is exactly what happened. So yes, the crews needed improvements, but this was unrelated to the Boeing erratic design and this need to be addressed with a training improvement program unrelated to the 737-8/9 MAX improvement program. The only link between the two points is the Boeing wrong assumptions about the pilots performance in a cockpit context that Boeing did not even analyse correctly, so it's absurd to blame the pilots in that precise cockpit context and wrong assumptions. This only feed endless debate like about measuring something with an inappropriate setup. The two points will be improved separately. Once you realize that, you understand how useless is to blame the pilots "response" to the erratic design. Boeing and pilots have both there set of unrelated improvements to do.


I agree with this statement. The only connection between the two is that the poor design also highlighted some training issues, and they both need to be addressed.
 
sgrow787
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:16 pm

DC10LAXJFK wrote:
Finally, given there is a criminal investigation underway by the Department of Justice, does anyone believe that the FAA will unground the plane until the investigation is completed? Wouldn't the FAA - or at least the airlines - want to know there was no criminal conduct involved in the certification process before restarting flying. I think the AA flight attendants are just the beginning of the pushback on Boeing and FAA, and even if cleared, I'm not sure there will be much flying for a while.


The criminal investigation outcome would mostly impact Boeing and other aerospace companies in the long term, as a deterrent to future criminal activity. The ungrounding of the Max will (or should) be about whether Boeing has made the necessary changes to make it safe, and that should include a review of the MCAS changes and, perhaps, a full review of other changes, including areas that weren't changed but now have shown deficiencies, eg the manual trim wheel gearing and size.

But I'm not sure why WSJ is saying a criminal conviction against Boeing would put them out of business:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/prosecutor ... 1572777000

Once they see that the problem at Boeing was a culture that emanated from the top, they can convict them and bring in new leadership, leaving the company intact.
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24793
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:26 pm

kalvado wrote:
Except for MAX was neither cheap nor fast.
Development timeframe for MAX is longer than for NG, which was a bigger development. Cost of MAX program was on par with A320 NEO cost.
Which leaves us with neither cheap, nor fast - and apparently not good.

Sorry, but you are using a false equivalence. MAX did not start from the same point as did NEO so Boeing had no option to do the same amount of work as did Airbus unless they licensed the A320 design from Airbus. Their choices were either improve the MAX or go clean sheet. Within the MAX option they always had the option to tell WN it could not meet the requirement for no sim training and common cockpit with NG due to safety concerns and produce an aircraft with active/active computer pair, EICAS, etc. Yet management insisted on fast+cheap so they told engineers they could not change anything that didn't absolutely need to be changed. The "whistleblower" story from a few weeks ago regarding adding synthetic airspeed for more safety provides documented evidence of that thought process.

PW100 wrote:
It seems you are arguing that Boeing Commercial then should also be shut down . . .

It pretty much is right now. DoJ criminal investigation, FAA and world regulators asking questions leading to JATR report, CEO and Chief Engineer in front of Congressional hearings on national TV, production line being run mainly to avoid the cost of rebooting it, no income coming in from its main profit maker, etc.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
kalvado
Posts: 2932
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:44 pm

Revelation wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Except for MAX was neither cheap nor fast.
Development timeframe for MAX is longer than for NG, which was a bigger development. Cost of MAX program was on par with A320 NEO cost.
Which leaves us with neither cheap, nor fast - and apparently not good.

Sorry, but you are using a false equivalence. MAX did not start from the same point as did NEO so Boeing had no option to do the same amount of work as did Airbus unless they licensed the A320 design from Airbus. Their choices were either improve the MAX or go clean sheet. Within the MAX option they always had the option to tell WN it could not meet the requirement for no sim training and common cockpit with NG due to safety concerns and produce an aircraft with active/active computer pair, EICAS, etc. Yet management insisted on fast+cheap so they told engineers they could not change anything that didn't absolutely need to be changed. The "whistleblower" story from a few weeks ago regarding adding synthetic airspeed for more safety provides documented evidence of that thought process.

Why MAX didn't start at the ame point as NEO? Re-engine options were explored, and while that could take time - it shouldn't be a major cost.
SO what is the percentage of work Airbus did before launch that Boeing didn't and what is the cost estimate for that work? 20% of the overall project cost or less? No major hardware work is done before program launch, so even 20% is too high of a value, 5-10% is more believable. And given that program cost of MAX is estimated as $1-1.8B compared to $1.3B for NEO - it is still on the same page. Which is to be compared to $5B ($8B comparable) cost of 777 clean sheet. So no, it wasn't cheap.
You didn't even bother argue "not fst" part, as that is way too obvious.
Bottom line - it came as a combo: expensive, slow, bad - you want some ketchup with that?
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 1026
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:55 pm

PW100 wrote:
The main problem on the Max, according to Peter's analysis, is that three different issues (each identified as MAJOR) happened at the same time:
* airspeed and altitude disagree = MAJOR 1
* false stall warning (stick shaker, minspeed/PLI anomoly, feel force increase) = MAJOR 2
* MCAS malfunction = MAJOR 3 (although Lemme argues that this could/should have been HAZARDOUS itself)

In his mind (I'm not sure if this is described by the regulations), if you have two simultaneous MAJOR events, they should be considered HAZARDOUS. Add a third MAJOR to it, it become CATASTROPHIC.
The associated safety assessments (FHA, SSA) failed to properly identify MCAS run-away risk (classifying it as MAJOR rather than HAZARDOUS), and did not take into consideration the stacked effects of three MAJOR events happening at the same time, which resulted in CATASTRPOHIC events.

Peter Lemme describes 3 wrong hazard classifications:
1) The process should have recognized that removing the aft column cutout switch created the HAZARDOUS mandate.
2) Repetitive MCAS malfunction should have been declared HAZARDOUS.
3) The combination of air data, stall warning and MCAS persistent malfunction should have been declared CATASTROPHIC.

Multiple wrong hazard classifications support the idea that there where biased to justify the design instead of driving the safety of the design. Many layers will try to prove that...
:stirthepot: 737-8 MAX: "For all speeds higher than 220 Kts and trim set at a value of 2.5 units, the difficulity level of turning the manual trim wheel was level A (trim wheel not movable)." :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24793
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:18 pm

sgrow787 wrote:
The criminal investigation outcome would mostly impact Boeing and other aerospace companies in the long term, as a deterrent to future criminal activity. The ungrounding of the Max will (or should) be about whether Boeing has made the necessary changes to make it safe, and that should include a review of the MCAS changes and, perhaps, a full review of other changes, including areas that weren't changed but now have shown deficiencies, eg the manual trim wheel gearing and size.

But I'm not sure why WSJ is saying a criminal conviction against Boeing would put them out of business:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/prosecutor ... 1572777000

Once they see that the problem at Boeing was a culture that emanated from the top, they can convict them and bring in new leadership, leaving the company intact.

You need to start from the criminal acts and the evidence thereof, not some vague goal of deterrence. In the US, engineering "mistakes" are typically not criminal offenses unless intentional/deliberate/egregious negligence is shown, the standard for proof is quite high. The standard for civil liability is lower.

Keep in mind that the VW executive found himself in jail for signing legal documents saying there was no defeat device in the engine while clearly knowing that was false. It's a high standard. Boeing is still maintaining a "plausible deniability" defense that seems to be still intact.

kalvado wrote:
Why MAX didn't start at the ame point as NEO? Re-engine options were explored, and while that could take time - it shouldn't be a major cost.
SO what is the percentage of work Airbus did before launch that Boeing didn't and what is the cost estimate for that work? 20% of the overall project cost or less? No major hardware work is done before program launch, so even 20% is too high of a value, 5-10% is more believable. And given that program cost of MAX is estimated as $1-1.8B compared to $1.3B for NEO - it is still on the same page. Which is to be compared to $5B ($8B comparable) cost of 777 clean sheet. So no, it wasn't cheap.
You didn't even bother argue "not fst" part, as that is way too obvious.
Bottom line - it came as a combo: expensive, slow, bad - you want some ketchup with that?

My points:

1) NEO started from the point of having tall landing gear to allow it to avoid the nacelle lift and C/G issues along with FBW to fix up minor mismatches in software, MAX had no such advantages thus should have been more costly

2) MAX is fast+cheap relative to a clean sheet (of course) or a better MAX design (management encouraging safety and engineering improvements rather than sole focus on fast+cheap), we have evidence now that the MCAS redo + active/active computer design is taking ~3/4 year of development time, in retrospect would have been better to do it the right way the first time around.

You seem to be arguing against some pretty different points.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 1026
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:30 pm

Revelation wrote:
The "whistleblower" story from a few weeks ago regarding adding synthetic airspeed for more safety provides documented evidence of that thought process.

I missed that part of the story: "Synthetic Air Data System" https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/1.C032177: :bouncy:
"A method for estimating the airspeed, angle of attack, and sideslip without using a conventional, pitot-static air data system is presented. The method relies on measurements from Global Positioning System, an inertial measurement unit, and a low-fidelity model of the aircraft’s dynamics, which are fused using two cascaded extended Kalman filters. In the cascaded architecture, the first filter uses information from the inertial measurement unit and Global Positioning System to estimate the aircraft’s absolute velocity and attitude. These estimates are used as the measurement updates for the second filter in which they are fused with the aircraft dynamics model to generate estimates of the airspeed, angle of attack and sideslip. Methods for dealing with the time and interstate correlation in the measurements coming from the first filter are discussed. Simulation and flight-test results of the method are presented. Simulation results show that the root mean square error of the airspeed estimate is less than 1  m/s1  m/s. The nominal errors from the flight test on airspeed, angle of attack, and sideslip are less than 2.5  m/s2.5  m/s, 2 deg, and 1 deg, respectively. Factors that affect the accuracy, including the implication and impact of using a low-fidelity aircraft model, are discussed."

Remember when I called (too often) for "flight dynamic predictive sensors filters" ? That so close ideas... :hyper:
I hope this will be mandatory in all new designs someday.
:stirthepot: 737-8 MAX: "For all speeds higher than 220 Kts and trim set at a value of 2.5 units, the difficulity level of turning the manual trim wheel was level A (trim wheel not movable)." :stirthepot:
 
kalvado
Posts: 2932
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:40 pm

Revelation wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Why MAX didn't start at the ame point as NEO? Re-engine options were explored, and while that could take time - it shouldn't be a major cost.
SO what is the percentage of work Airbus did before launch that Boeing didn't and what is the cost estimate for that work? 20% of the overall project cost or less? No major hardware work is done before program launch, so even 20% is too high of a value, 5-10% is more believable. And given that program cost of MAX is estimated as $1-1.8B compared to $1.3B for NEO - it is still on the same page. Which is to be compared to $5B ($8B comparable) cost of 777 clean sheet. So no, it wasn't cheap.
You didn't even bother argue "not fst" part, as that is way too obvious.
Bottom line - it came as a combo: expensive, slow, bad - you want some ketchup with that?

My points:

1) NEO started from the point of having tall landing gear to allow it to avoid the nacelle lift and C/G issues along with FBW to fix up minor mismatches in software, MAX had no such advantages thus should have been more costly

2) MAX is fast+cheap relative to a clean sheet (of course) or a better MAX design (management encouraging safety and engineering improvements rather than sole focus on fast+cheap), we have evidence now that the MCAS redo + active/active computer design is taking ~3/4 year of development time, in retrospect would have been better to do it the right way the first time around.

You seem to be arguing against some pretty different points.

I am arguing that it wasn't fast even compared to clean sheet design - in fact, 787 program was originally planned to be 5 years, as long as MAX, and 777 clean sheet too about 6 years (less of a rigid program launch date). Given the amount of work below clean sheet, Boeing had all the time to complete design.
Cost of the program, in my world, is again proportional to the amount of work to be performed.

You may say that modification is cheap compared to the clean sheet - but the clean sheet is a major endeavor, and we do see a lot of modifications - that is only reasonable. Was re-engine a good idea? In my world, it may be a difficult problem which still should be solvable, and in fact Boeing ALMOST did a reasonable design.
Once decision of going to modification is taken, I expect work to be performed according to standards. There will be some shortcuts, of course, but I can see how a much better design of MCAS was definitely possible even withing existing constraints. And if difficult to implement re-engine was a management level decision, massive shortcuts were taken on engineering floor.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9412
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:08 pm

kalvado wrote:
Revelation wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Except for MAX was neither cheap nor fast.
Development timeframe for MAX is longer than for NG, which was a bigger development. Cost of MAX program was on par with A320 NEO cost.
Which leaves us with neither cheap, nor fast - and apparently not good.

Sorry, but you are using a false equivalence. MAX did not start from the same point as did NEO so Boeing had no option to do the same amount of work as did Airbus unless they licensed the A320 design from Airbus. Their choices were either improve the MAX or go clean sheet. Within the MAX option they always had the option to tell WN it could not meet the requirement for no sim training and common cockpit with NG due to safety concerns and produce an aircraft with active/active computer pair, EICAS, etc. Yet management insisted on fast+cheap so they told engineers they could not change anything that didn't absolutely need to be changed. The "whistleblower" story from a few weeks ago regarding adding synthetic airspeed for more safety provides documented evidence of that thought process.

Why MAX didn't start at the ame point as NEO? Re-engine options were explored, and while that could take time - it shouldn't be a major cost.
SO what is the percentage of work Airbus did before launch that Boeing didn't and what is the cost estimate for that work? 20% of the overall project cost or less? No major hardware work is done before program launch, so even 20% is too high of a value, 5-10% is more believable. And given that program cost of MAX is estimated as $1-1.8B compared to $1.3B for NEO - it is still on the same page. Which is to be compared to $5B ($8B comparable) cost of 777 clean sheet. So no, it wasn't cheap.
You didn't even bother argue "not fst" part, as that is way too obvious.
Bottom line - it came as a combo: expensive, slow, bad - you want some ketchup with that?


I think the main difference between the neo and the MAX was, the neo was part of an longer term upgrade plan, whereas the MAX was a snap decision.

There were several upgrades to the A320 family, where the engine replacement came at the end. Airbus had a clear picture where they wanted to go with the A320 family and are still running through the improvement stages, especially with the A321.

Boeing wanted to do a clean sheet, but waited clearly far to long. (perhaps they should have invested a few billions USD in aircraft design, rather than in share buy backs)
Boeing was surprised by the sales success of the neo and decided to do the MAX without having thought the changes through. Later they were caught by their decision for minimal changes to keep the type rating intact, again I assume a decision taken by the sales department, rather than by the engineers.
 
MrBretz
Posts: 560
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:08 pm

PixelFlight wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The "whistleblower" story from a few weeks ago regarding adding synthetic airspeed for more safety provides documented evidence of that thought process.

I missed that part of the story: "Synthetic Air Data System" https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/1.C032177: :bouncy:
"A method for estimating the airspeed, angle of attack, and sideslip without using a conventional, pitot-static air data system is presented. The method relies on measurements from Global Positioning System, an inertial measurement unit, and a low-fidelity model of the aircraft’s dynamics, which are fused using two cascaded extended Kalman filters. In the cascaded architecture, the first filter uses information from the inertial measurement unit and Global Positioning System to estimate the aircraft’s absolute velocity and attitude. These estimates are used as the measurement updates for the second filter in which they are fused with the aircraft dynamics model to generate estimates of the airspeed, angle of attack and sideslip. Methods for dealing with the time and interstate correlation in the measurements coming from the first filter are discussed. Simulation and flight-test results of the method are presented. Simulation results show that the root mean square error of the airspeed estimate is less than 1  m/s1  m/s. The nominal errors from the flight test on airspeed, angle of attack, and sideslip are less than 2.5  m/s2.5  m/s, 2 deg, and 1 deg, respectively. Factors that affect the accuracy, including the implication and impact of using a low-fidelity aircraft model, are discussed."

Remember when I called (too often) for "flight dynamic predictive sensors filters" ? That so close ideas... :hyper:
I hope this will be mandatory in all new designs someday.


I remember you talking about it but I didn't get it since there were no details. This looks great. IMU and GPS measurements are, I hate to say this, rock solid. And the second filter using this sounds like a great idea. So if this had been around, the bad AoA data would have been discarded or at least flagged as bad. Now I will see if I can sort of understand the article. Thanks.
 
abies111
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:28 pm

At which point the Boeing's decision to fix the MCAS system mess by changing the less amount of (software) parts, by having in mind the purpose of showing no contradictions with development and post Lionair disaster statements is actually hampering the company (increasing losses through extended grounding and uncertain response of worldwide regulatory agencies), in comparison with a more radical approach to the problem? I mean, changing whatever has to be changed, including some hardware, to reach security standards of the company itself, and assuming loss of commonality with NG. Because Boeing, for sure, knows how to make really the MAX a safe airplane, but seems to be much more difficult with all the conditionants imposed by the direction
 
sgrow787
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:32 pm

Revelation wrote:
You need to start from the criminal acts and the evidence thereof, not some vague goal of deterrence.


You need to take into consideration the context of the question to which I was responding, which was - will or should a criminal investigation affect the Max ungrounding. :banghead:

Revelation wrote:
In the US, engineering "mistakes" are typically not criminal offenses unless intentional/deliberate/egregious negligence is shown, the standard for proof is quite high.


But I haven't been referring to this saga as an engineering mistake. I've been pretty firm from the start about the real issue being intentional manipulation by Boeing of the certification process.

Revelation wrote:
Keep in mind that the VW executive found himself in jail for signing legal documents saying there was no defeat device in the engine while clearly knowing that was false. It's a high standard. Boeing is still maintaining a "plausible deniability" defense that seems to be still intact.


But the standard can move when there are 346 lives lost in just two crashes. No one died from the VW scandal.
Last edited by sgrow787 on Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:55 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9412
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:36 pm

abies111 wrote:
At which point the Boeing's decision to fix the MCAS system mess by changing the less amount of (software) parts, by having in mind the purpose of showing no contradictions with development and post Lionair disaster statements is actually hampering the company (increasing losses through extended grounding and uncertain response of worldwide regulatory agencies), in comparison with a more radical approach to the problem? I mean, changing whatever has to be changed, including some hardware, to reach security standards of the company itself, and assuming loss of commonality with NG. Because Boeing, for sure, knows how to make really the MAX a safe airplane, but seems to be much more difficult with all the conditionants imposed by the direction


That is what I call Boeing playing chicken with regulators.
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 1026
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:45 pm

MrBretz wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The "whistleblower" story from a few weeks ago regarding adding synthetic airspeed for more safety provides documented evidence of that thought process.

I missed that part of the story: "Synthetic Air Data System" https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/1.C032177: :bouncy:
"A method for estimating the airspeed, angle of attack, and sideslip without using a conventional, pitot-static air data system is presented. The method relies on measurements from Global Positioning System, an inertial measurement unit, and a low-fidelity model of the aircraft’s dynamics, which are fused using two cascaded extended Kalman filters. In the cascaded architecture, the first filter uses information from the inertial measurement unit and Global Positioning System to estimate the aircraft’s absolute velocity and attitude. These estimates are used as the measurement updates for the second filter in which they are fused with the aircraft dynamics model to generate estimates of the airspeed, angle of attack and sideslip. Methods for dealing with the time and interstate correlation in the measurements coming from the first filter are discussed. Simulation and flight-test results of the method are presented. Simulation results show that the root mean square error of the airspeed estimate is less than 1  m/s1  m/s. The nominal errors from the flight test on airspeed, angle of attack, and sideslip are less than 2.5  m/s2.5  m/s, 2 deg, and 1 deg, respectively. Factors that affect the accuracy, including the implication and impact of using a low-fidelity aircraft model, are discussed."

Remember when I called (too often) for "flight dynamic predictive sensors filters" ? That so close ideas... :hyper:
I hope this will be mandatory in all new designs someday.


I remember you talking about it but I didn't get it since there were no details. This looks great. IMU and GPS measurements are, I hate to say this, rock solid. And the second filter using this sounds like a great idea. So if this had been around, the bad AoA data would have been discarded or at least flagged as bad. Now I will see if I can sort of understand the article. Thanks.

On my side this was only an idea, based on the observation that the aircraft sensors are far from independent but linked together by the flight dynamic of the aircraft. But I didn't know how to do this in details except that flight dynamic model and predictive filters would obviously be important parts of the system. In my idea the measurements would be from any relevant data, not just the IMU and GPS. Glade to discover that not only there are paper on successful architecture to do this with cascaded extended Kalman filters, but that Boeing itself already use a "synthetic airspeed" on the 787 https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5773029/ao-2015-149-final.pdf page 5:

"Although there are three independent pitot-static systems for determining computed airspeed,
adverse environmental conditions, as encountered during this flight, can affect all three
simultaneously. On the B787, the synthetic AOA speed allows an independent source of airspeed
as a comparison in order to validate the voted airspeed."

The whistleblower was spot on. Boeing did already have everything internally to avoid the mistake. So sad...

Edit: There are even more advanced idea: Learning-based Air Data System https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~bboots/files/SSRR2018.pdf
:stirthepot: 737-8 MAX: "For all speeds higher than 220 Kts and trim set at a value of 2.5 units, the difficulity level of turning the manual trim wheel was level A (trim wheel not movable)." :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24793
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 9:45 pm

sgrow787 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
You need to start from the criminal acts and the evidence thereof, not some vague goal of deterrence.

You need to take into consideration the context of the question to which I was responding, which was - will or should a criminal investigation affect the Max ungrounding. :banghead:

Sorry, I missed that.

sgrow787 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
In the US, engineering "mistakes" are typically not criminal offenses unless intentional/deliberate/egregious negligence is shown, the standard for proof is quite high.

But I haven't been referring to this saga as an engineering mistake. I've been pretty firm from the start about the real issue being intentional manipulation by Boeing of the certification process.

That's a valid opinion, but what matters in this context is what can be proven in criminal court. :banghead:

sgrow787 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Keep in mind that the VW executive found himself in jail for signing legal documents saying there was no defeat device in the engine while clearly knowing that was false. It's a high standard. Boeing is still maintaining a "plausible deniability" defense that seems to be still intact.

But the standard can move when there are 346 lives lost in just two crashes.

The standard changes only when the laws change. :banghead:

sgrow787 wrote:
No one died from the VW scandal.

No one knows the human cost of VW's diesel cheating for certain, but https://news.mit.edu/2017/volkswagen-em ... urope-0303 suggests:

In a paper published today in Environmental Research Letters, the team reports that the manufacturer’s emissions in excess of the test-stand limit value have had a significant effect on public health not just in Germany but across Europe.

The researchers estimate that 1,200 people in Europe will die early, each losing as much as a decade of their life, as a result of excess emissions generated between 2008 and 2015 by affected cars sold in Germany. Of these premature deaths, 500 will likely occur in Germany, meaning that more than 60 percent of premature mortalities stemming from those German-sold cars will occur in neighboring countries, most notably Poland, France, and the Czech Republic.

The study was focused on pollution generated by the VW Group autos sold in Germany, yet we know they were sold pretty much all around the world.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1911
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:14 pm

Revelation wrote:
How do we know they don't? It took the major MCAS issue to get the 'holes in the Swiss Cheese' to line up, but that doesn't mean there aren't other holes waiting for some other event that would cause them to line up. Isn't a preemptive shutdown called for, ala ValuJet in the 90s?

ValuJet was grounded by the FAA on June 16, 1996, and was allowed to resume flying again on September 30, but never recovered from the crash.[

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_F ... estigation



Because Boeing 737NG aircraft aren't falling out of the sky every few months? If the system in Indonesia allows for more holes to be present that would surely make the incidents more prevalent and we should have seen more accidents involving the 739 and Lion Air. Lion Air launched the 739ER in 2007 and they have a fifth of the delivered aircraft around the world, 101 of the 505 delivered, so I just wonder out loud why, if there is so many problems with the pilots and maintenance and so many holes in the cheese, have we not seen more incidents?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24793
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:41 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Because Boeing 737NG aircraft aren't falling out of the sky every few months?

Sure, let's just go with that notion, just like Boeing went with "3 seconds reaction time is the long standing industry standard", nothing to see here.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
sgrow787
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:56 pm

Revelation wrote:
The standard changes only when the laws change.


Sorry, but the standard of proof is subjective, because juries are composed of human beings, and presiding judges are human beings.

Revelation wrote:
sgrow787 wrote:
No one died from the VW scandal.

No one knows the human cost of VW's diesel cheating for certain, but https://news.mit.edu/2017/volkswagen-em ... urope-0303 suggests:

In a paper published today in Environmental Research Letters, the team reports that the manufacturer’s emissions in excess of the test-stand limit value have had a significant effect on public health not just in Germany but across Europe.
The study was focused on pollution generated by the VW Group autos sold in Germany, yet we know they were sold pretty much all around the world.



Now you think a jury is going to equate 346 Max crash victims, whose lives were ended via highspeed impact with water and ground, completely disintegrating and burning metal, flesh and bone, in a matter of minutes, with the long term health effects to the general population of breathing in less clean air over a period of years?? Lots of noise again, unfortunately.
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24793
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 03, 2019 11:50 pm

sgrow787 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The standard changes only when the laws change.

Sorry, but the standard of proof is subjective, because juries are composed of human beings, and presiding judges are human beings.

Any subjective ruling is bound to be taken to appeal and if the jury verdict is without merit it is subject to reversal or retrial.

sgrow787 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
sgrow787 wrote:
No one died from the VW scandal.

No one knows the human cost of VW's diesel cheating for certain, but https://news.mit.edu/2017/volkswagen-em ... urope-0303 suggests:
In a paper published today in Environmental Research Letters, the team reports that the manufacturer’s emissions in excess of the test-stand limit value have had a significant effect on public health not just in Germany but across Europe.
The study was focused on pollution generated by the VW Group autos sold in Germany, yet we know they were sold pretty much all around the world.


Now you think a jury is going to equate 346 Max crash victims, whose lives were ended via highspeed impact with water and ground, completely disintegrating and burning metal, flesh and bone, in a matter of minutes, with the long term health effects to the general population of breathing in less clean air over a period of years?? Lots of noise again, unfortunately.

You need to take into consideration the context of the point that I was refuting, which was - No one died from the VW scandal.. :banghead:
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Saintor
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:35 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:20 am

kalvado wrote:
Saintor wrote:
kalvado wrote:

Basically threshold is set incorrectly. If successful outcome is the criteria, test 1000 crews, half of them deprived of proper sleep, the other one with fire alarm playing full volume behind them.
If 999 handle this successfully, then return to square one - this is an unsafe design.



What you are basically saying is that it is not relevant that pilots manage the situation correctly or not and all systems must be idiot-proof. Wrong assumption.

No, I am basically saying that FAR has to be followed. We are talking about 1e-5 event, so crew ability to handle events has to be better than 9999/10000 for the plane to be certifiable.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ch ... 251309.png


Not if a crew commit some gross errors (like not following basic checklists) - just what happened.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2932
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:57 am

Saintor wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Saintor wrote:


What you are basically saying is that it is not relevant that pilots manage the situation correctly or not and all systems must be idiot-proof. Wrong assumption.

No, I am basically saying that FAR has to be followed. We are talking about 1e-5 event, so crew ability to handle events has to be better than 9999/10000 for the plane to be certifiable.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ch ... 251309.png


Not if a crew commit some gross errors (like not following basic checklists) - just what happened.

If 1 out of 1000 crews commit gross error in a certain situation, that situation happenes as often as AoA failure, and that gross error leads to a crash - the situation has to be regulary trained in sim to improve chance of success (most likely impossible), or other equally efficient precautions have to be taken - e.g. aircraft has to be redesigned. Otherwise aircraft is not certifyable and shouldn't be allowed into commercial service. This is the law. This is what is going on with 737.
Thinking otherwise should have been phased out at least 30-40 years ago.
 
sgrow787
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:53 am

Revelation wrote:
You need to take into consideration the context of the point that I was refuting, which was - No one died from the VW scandal.. :banghead:


Perhaps your heart has run through its seasons or doesn't know which beach to land in.

Wake now I say. Discover that you are not the center of the universe, that others have songs that the morning brings. :box:
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24793
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:03 am

sgrow787 wrote:
Perhaps your heart has run through its seasons or doesn't know which beach to land in.

Wake now I say. Discover that you are not the center of the universe, that others have songs that the morning brings. :box:

As my friend's dad used to say, https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... 20eight%21 ...
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:04 am

XRAYretired wrote:
No. MCAS existed in its V1.0 form due to incompetent design, incompetent FHA and SSA justified by using incorrect use of unsupported 4 second response time and flawed quantitative analysis . You cannot then claim the pilots as cause because they failed to comply with Boeings incorrect and unsupported assumptions.


You seemed to gloss over this. Let me say it another way: the Indonesian report gave us tour of the design and certification of the airplane and MCAS in particular. We actually get to see the process used to certify it. And from the bureaucratic perspective, it all makes sense. I've done FHA and FMEA for safety critical systems and I can see exactly how this went through. Therefore, you should probably be concerned that the "proper process" resulted in two nose-dives.
 
benbeny
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:26 am

mjoelnir wrote:
benbeny wrote:
shmerik wrote:

So the airlines are to blame for not providing training for a feature that they weren't even aware of?

They never asked Boeing to create a plane that only requires iPad training, they just stipulated that they pay less if training was required, which makes sense since they take on the cost of the training

Yet we in here complained a lot about less and less training. Training is costly, so does the airplane. It's a cost of doing business. Why don't we ask airlines to give more training? Why does regulators worldwide agree with required trainings?


Good question. But why do not point it into the right direction, at Boeing.

One of the main push by Boeing was in regards to the MAX were the minimum training requirements. They sold to Southwest and I assume other airlines, the promise of no simulator training requirement for on million USD per frame.
They than went to hide the changes from NG to MAX and got the FAA to underwrite the minimum training requirement.

If we do not expect Boeing to put the foot down, as they put shareholder's satisfaction before safety, as a good corporation does, we should expect the FAA to act. But they failed miserably.

The next player, airlines, want also to cut training expenses down, see again shareholders satisfaction. I do not see why USA posters are so satisfied with their system, those USA airlines do not want to train pilots from scratch, they want to get them ready made with somebody else having paid for the training.

Outside of the USA you see some airlines starting to set up their own programs to train pilots from scratch, or have done that for a while. But that is hardly done out of compassion, but it gets to be the only way those airlines can get enough well trained pilots.

I would like to see airlines running training programs, like European companies in many industries having run apprenticeship programs. It is the fastest and safest way to a skilled work force.
Of course one should do away with the 1,500 hours requirement. If there would be sense in that requirement you would see a serious Air Force like in the USA use a similar time frame, non does.
The training programs should be similar to apprenticeship programs in not putting the cost on the trainee. Rigorous requirements with wheezing out the inefficient and hopeless, do not go well with taking money from the trainee, you set up a conflict of interest.
Letting a pilot pay for being allowed to start off at in airline in the right seat, should be absolutely banned.


Well in the end it's all about money, right?
 
tedzbear
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun May 19, 2019 10:47 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:32 am

Why is it taking so long for Boeing to get the software fix ready for certification?
 
giblets
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:34 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:23 am

MOL of Ryanair saying on BBC R4 this morning he doesn’t expect Max deliveries until past March, more likely summer 2020


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
146, ATR72, Q400, Saab 340, PA-46 Jetprop, Jetstream, E175/195, 707/727/737/747/757/767/777, DC-3/9/10, MD-11/80, A300/310/319/320/321/330/340/350/380 Tristar, BAC 1-11, Trident, Chipmunk, Bell 206/222, Chinook, Puma, Cessna 172, Fokker 70, 100, SRN4!
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 738
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:32 am

Here is some more on the O'Leary statement:

In a video alongside the results, chief executive Michael O'Leary (pictured) said there is "a real risk that it would have no Boeing 737 MAX aircraft flying next summer if there are additional delays to the return to service of the grounded aircraft.

"We have now reduced our expectation of 30 Max aircraft being delivered to us in advance of peak summer 2020 down to 20 aircraft and there is a real risk of none."


Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/business-50261657?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=5dbfcad5cd75fa066f746a06%26Ryanair%20warns%20on%20jobs%262019-11-04T06%3A53%3A09.953Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:6a46ad55-d336-4dd1-bc3e-d66f30aa887d&pinned_post_asset_id=5dbfcad5cd75fa066f746a06&pinned_post_type=share
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14102
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:33 am

smithbs wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
No. MCAS existed in its V1.0 form due to incompetent design, incompetent FHA and SSA justified by using incorrect use of unsupported 4 second response time and flawed quantitative analysis . You cannot then claim the pilots as cause because they failed to comply with Boeings incorrect and unsupported assumptions.


You seemed to gloss over this. Let me say it another way: the Indonesian report gave us tour of the design and certification of the airplane and MCAS in particular. We actually get to see the process used to certify it. And from the bureaucratic perspective, it all makes sense. I've done FHA and FMEA for safety critical systems and I can see exactly how this went through. Therefore, you should probably be concerned that the "proper process" resulted in two nose-dives.


That is the most concerning part. This also shines through in the JATR report, that Boeing, congress and it's lobbyist carefully try to keep out of the discussions. It seems congress, Boeing and FAA mixed up their roles.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:29 am

An oft raised question - what about NG? on the way to being answered. Seems there are at least some regulator actions in that direction.

'.....It is understood that officials from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) are conducting detailed checks on the NG with input from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)..........'

'........Officials are investigating the “angle-of-attack” sensor system on the NG after a thorough analysis of the same system on the Max, sources said. The system measures the angle of the oncoming air and is an important stall indicator. One source said that officials were investigating the design of the entire angle-of-attack sensor system, including software linked to it.
A source said: “The issues with the Max have caused them to look at the NG and there’s almost certain to be some action there. This is really positive. Rather than just saying, ‘All the NGs are flying safely, they have lots of flying hours,’ they are taking a proper look.”...…'

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... -qwzfjkpl5

Ray
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14102
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:05 am

I think they should have a look at the NG grandfathered emergency warning system and human interfaces. The cacophony of alarms and alerts, (incorrect) vocal warnings that occurred in NG crashes over the last 15 years has always been washed away by powerfull communication (unverfied 737 safety track record claims, blaming pilot training) and the supportive, balanced, understanding position of local analyst, press, politics, stakeholders.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9412
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:19 am

The question is, is a look at the 737NG really needed. Sales of that frame have ended. It has a good safety record, though one could find quite a few things wrong with it.

In regards to the MAX the situation is completely different. No reason to not replace systems that have been marginal already on the NG. The MAX is expected to be produced at least the next decade and perhaps the next two, so it should at least comply with today's rules.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10397
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:43 am

tedzbear wrote:
Why is it taking so long for Boeing to get the software fix ready for certification?

The head of the FAA has already confirmed that in October 2019 Boeing submitted the final software load along with documentation of changes to the a/c, scroll up and you will see the quotes to his statement by multiple posters.

The new head of the FAA seems to be trusted so.........
 
asdf
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:47 am

mjoelnir wrote:
The question is, is a look at the 737NG really needed. Sales of that frame have ended. It has a good safety record, though one could find quite a few things wrong with it.


there have been a few 737NG disasters with a trim context
but as far as there are no more of them coming up, it would probably be unreasonable to take any action on the NGs

the 737MAX ... other story ... it think it is unsafe because of its aerodynamic attidudes
it should not fly
 
Noshow
Posts: 1781
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:01 pm

Is there any interim feedback from the FAA's testing of the Boeing proposed software modifications? I wonder if the Ryanair CEO has heard anything "we" might not know yet that motivated his more sceptical return to service statement above. Has the FAA said how they "like" the mods until now or not?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9412
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:07 pm

Noshow wrote:
Is there any interim feedback from the FAA's testing of the Boeing proposed software modifications? I wonder if the Ryanair CEO has heard anything "we" might not know yet that motivated his more sceptical return to service statement above. Has the FAA said how they "like" the mods until now or not?


The Ryan Air CEO is perhaps more connected to feedback from EASA and they do not seem to be very satisfied with Boeing's answers.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14102
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:09 pm

asdf wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The question is, is a look at the 737NG really needed. Sales of that frame have ended. It has a good safety record, though one could find quite a few things wrong with it.


there have been a few 737NG disasters with a trim context
but as far as there are no more of them coming up, it would probably be unreasonable to take any action on the NGs

the 737MAX ... other story ... it think it is unsafe because of its aerodynamic attidudes
it should not fly


Read through e.g. Turkish 1951, what happened, lack of redundancy, confusing emergency systems and how it was handeld. (Wait/hide behind not yet available official investigation reports as long as possible, indirectly question pilots/ training, play the media, give discounts, make changes silently).

Or how Boeing was able to keep NG crahes involving redundancy and human interfaces out of statistic to enable grandfathering of requirements and design for the 737MAX. With a (now) unsurprizing cooperative FAA.

Instead of taking the claimed excellent 737NG safety record as starting point, reason to by-pass, experts look at those NG records again, including incidents, accidents, re-tagging them for relation with insights they got more recently. That's what we pay them for.

Independent reviews of previous projects are logical here, for independent authorities taking themselves seriously.

Why is nobody asking for a formal Boeing responds to the JATR recommendations? The Senate could have asked.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Alfons
Posts: 310
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:17 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:53 pm

tedzbear wrote:
Why is it taking so long for Boeing to get the software fix ready for certification?


because they want to make it sure that it's also certifiable by regulators which are not bought by them.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24793
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:16 pm

tedzbear wrote:
Why is it taking so long for Boeing to get the software fix ready for certification?

We are still on the timeline predicted months ago with a few weeks of slippage.

I think the key milestone for airlines will be getting ready for the Northern Hemisphere summer travel season, now that the winter season has been missed.

If you look at the 737 production thread you see a picture of a MAX7 on the runway being used for FAA flight tests.

I think they are using the first MAX7 since it presumably still has all the flight test instrumentation installed.

I think there must be some desire for privacy, since Boeing never echoed FAA's announcement on handing over the software and the documentation.

It's probably less stressful for the company and the regulator to not have zillions of cameras watching each takeoff and landing.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24793
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:32 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
An oft raised question - what about NG? on the way to being answered. Seems there are at least some regulator actions in that direction.

'.....It is understood that officials from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) are conducting detailed checks on the NG with input from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)..........'

'........Officials are investigating the “angle-of-attack” sensor system on the NG after a thorough analysis of the same system on the Max, sources said. The system measures the angle of the oncoming air and is an important stall indicator. One source said that officials were investigating the design of the entire angle-of-attack sensor system, including software linked to it.
A source said: “The issues with the Max have caused them to look at the NG and there’s almost certain to be some action there. This is really positive. Rather than just saying, ‘All the NGs are flying safely, they have lots of flying hours,’ they are taking a proper look.”...…'

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... -qwzfjkpl5

Same logic should be applied to JT's operation rather than the silly logic of "they aren't crashing NGs so nothing to see there".

It'll be interesting to see if there will be a mandate to back-port the dual input checking of MAX back to NG, or implement a third (synthetic?) source for AoA data, and if so, what timeline will be mandated.

mjoelnir wrote:
The question is, is a look at the 737NG really needed. Sales of that frame have ended. It has a good safety record, though one could find quite a few things wrong with it.

That makes no sense. Why decide you need to replace exploding air bags only on new cars rather than mandate replacement on all models with the fault? NGs came off the production line this year and will be flying for decades to come.

mjoelnir wrote:
In regards to the MAX the situation is completely different. No reason to not replace systems that have been marginal already on the NG. The MAX is expected to be produced at least the next decade and perhaps the next two, so it should at least comply with today's rules.

More nonsense. Standards have been set (i.e. todays rules with documented exemptions) and they should be followed for both NG and MAX (and other aircraft too). In the case of MAX we now see the mistakes Boeing made in meeting the standards and they are being fixed. If NG made mistakes in its certification it too should be fixed, but as of yet we know of no such mistakes.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10397
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:38 pm

keesje wrote:
Why is nobody asking for a formal Boeing responds to the JATR recommendations? The Senate could have asked.

Remind us again who commissioned the JATR report, that should go a long way in answering your question, at least based on A.Net standards.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19285
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:47 pm

Revelation wrote:
We are still on the timeline predicted months ago with a few weeks of slippage.


On schedule but with a few weeks of slippage?

If you’re not in PR you may have missed your vocation in life! :wink2:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24793
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:03 pm

scbriml wrote:
Revelation wrote:
We are still on the timeline predicted months ago with a few weeks of slippage.


On schedule but with a few weeks of slippage?

If you’re not in PR you may have missed your vocation in life! :wink2:

Sorry but of course almost every schedule I've seen is the most optimistic rendering of events, designed to keep the pressure on the people in the trenches.

I'd expect no different in this case.

As I wrote earlier, if he said Q1 2020 everyone involved would recaliabrate and it would be no earlier than Q1 2020.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Noshow
Posts: 1781
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:21 pm

O'Leary said he is not sure to have any MAX back by summer 2020. That would put the return to service behind Q1 2020. This means behind the timeframe the Boeing CEO has said he would need to halt the MAX-production without renewed permit to fly. Is there something new brewing?
 
majano
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:26 pm

Revelation wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Revelation wrote:
We are still on the timeline predicted months ago with a few weeks of slippage.


On schedule but with a few weeks of slippage?

If you’re not in PR you may have missed your vocation in life! :wink2:

Sorry but of course almost every schedule I've seen is the most optimistic rendering of events, designed to keep the pressure on the people in the trenches.

I'd expect no different in this case.

As I wrote earlier, if he said Q1 2020 everyone involved would recaliabrate and it would be no earlier than Q1 2020.

So are you now rendering events for Boeing? I have not seen any Boeing communication claiming this "on schedule but with a few weeks of slippage", unless I have missed it.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos